IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v74y2014is1ps16-s23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainability of light water reactor fuel cycles

Author

Listed:
  • Rothwell, Geoffrey
  • Wood, Thomas W.
  • Daly, Don
  • Weimar, Mark R.

Abstract

This paper compares the sustainability of two light water reactor, LWR, fuel cycles: the once-through UOX (low-enriched uranium oxide) cycle and the twice-through MOX (Mixed Uranium-Plutonium Oxide) cycle (increasing the input efficiency of available uranium) by assessing their probable long-term competitiveness. With the retirement of diffusion enrichment facilities, enrichment prices have declined by one-third since 2009 and are likely to remain below $100-kgSWU for the foreseeable future. Here, initial uranium prices are set at $90/kgU and reprocessing costs at $2500 per kilogram of heavy-metal throughput, representative of “new-build” costs for reprocessing facilities. Substantial reprocessing cost reductions must be achieved if MOX is to be competitive, i.e., if it is to improve the sustainability of the LWR. However, results indicate that preserving the MOX alternative for spent fuel management later in this century has a large present value under several sets of assumptions regarding uranium price increases and reprocessing cost decreases.

Suggested Citation

  • Rothwell, Geoffrey & Wood, Thomas W. & Daly, Don & Weimar, Mark R., 2014. "Sustainability of light water reactor fuel cycles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(S1), pages 16-23.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:74:y:2014:i:s1:p:s16-s23
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.07.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514004467
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.07.018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louberge, Henri & Villeneuve, Stephane & Chesney, Marc, 2002. "Long-term risk management of nuclear waste: a real options approach," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 157-180, November.
    2. Masahiko Aoki & Geoffrey Rothwell, 2013. "A comparative institutional analysis of the Fukushima nuclear disaster: Lessons and policy implications," Chapters, in: Comparative Institutional Analysis, chapter 8, pages 105-132, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Geoffrey Rothwell, 2006. "A Real Options Approach to Evaluating New Nuclear Power Plants," The Energy Journal, , vol. 27(1), pages 37-54, January.
    4. Rothwell, Geoffrey, 2010. "International light water nuclear fuel fabrication supply: Are fabrication services assured?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 538-544, May.
    5. Masahiko Aoki, 2013. "Comparative Institutional Analysis," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15474.
    6. Black, Fischer & Scholes, Myron S, 1973. "The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(3), pages 637-654, May-June.
    7. De Roo, Guillaume & Parsons, John E., 2011. "A methodology for calculating the levelized cost of electricity in nuclear power systems with fuel recycling," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 826-839, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jang, Yeonju & Park, Eunil, 2020. "Social acceptance of nuclear power plants in Korea: The role of public perceptions following the Fukushima accident," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    2. Santos, Lúcia & Soares, Isabel & Mendes, Carla & Ferreira, Paula, 2014. "Real Options versus Traditional Methods to assess Renewable Energy Projects," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 588-594.
    3. Lee, Shun-Chung & Shih, Li-Hsing, 2010. "Renewable energy policy evaluation using real option model -- The case of Taiwan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(Supplemen), pages 67-78, September.
    4. Niematallah Elamin & Mototsugu Fukushige, 2017. "The 2011 Japanese energy crisis: Effects on the magnitude and pattern of load demand," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 17-19, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    5. Chuanwang Sun & Nan Lyu & Xiaoling Ouyang, 2014. "Chinese Public Willingness to Pay to Avoid Having Nuclear Power Plants in the Neighborhood," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-27, October.
    6. Geoffrey Rothwell, 2010. "New U.S. Nuclear Generation: 2010-2030," Discussion Papers 09-025, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    7. Kessides, Ioannis N., 2010. "Nuclear power: Understanding the economic risks and uncertainties," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 3849-3864, August.
    8. Miikka J. Lehtonen & Ainomaija Haarla & Masaaki Kotabe, 0. "Beyond the inflection point: how and why individuals promote inventions in Japan," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 0, pages 1-25.
    9. Portugal-Pereira, J. & Ferreira, P. & Cunha, J. & Szklo, A. & Schaeffer, R. & Araújo, M., 2018. "Better late than never, but never late is better: Risk assessment of nuclear power construction projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 158-166.
    10. George Halkos & Argyro Zisiadou, 2020. "An Overview of the Technological Environmental Hazards over the Last Century," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 411-428, July.
    11. Yanbin Li & Min Wu & Zhen Li, 2018. "A Real Options Analysis for Renewable Energy Investment Decisions under China Carbon Trading Market," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-10, July.
    12. Iyer, Sriya & Velu, Chander, 2006. "Real options and demographic decisions," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 39-58, June.
    13. Marreco, Juliana de Moraes & Carpio, Lucio Guido Tapia, 2006. "Flexibility valuation in the Brazilian power system: A real options approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3749-3756, December.
    14. Masahiko Aoki, 2013. "Historical sources of institutional trajectories in economic development: China, Japan and Korea compared," Chapters, in: Comparative Institutional Analysis, chapter 22, pages 439-469, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Westner, Günther & Madlener, Reinhard, 2012. "Investment in new power generation under uncertainty: Benefits of CHP vs. condensing plants in a copula-based analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 31-44.
    16. Jan Goebel & Christian Krekel & Tim Tiefenbach & Nicolas Ziebarth, 2015. "How natural disasters can affect environmental concerns, risk aversion, and even politics: evidence from Fukushima and three European countries," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 28(4), pages 1137-1180, October.
    17. Pfenninger, Stefan & Keirstead, James, 2015. "Comparing concentrating solar and nuclear power as baseload providers using the example of South Africa," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 303-314.
    18. Daniel Ziegler & Katrin Schmitz & Christoph Weber, 2012. "Optimal electricity generation portfolios," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 381-399, August.
    19. Lee, Shun-Chung, 2011. "Using real option analysis for highly uncertain technology investments: The case of wind energy technology," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4443-4450.
    20. Anastasios Michailidis & Konstadinos Mattas & Irene Tzouramani & Diamantis Karamouzis, 2009. "A Socioeconomic Valuation of an Irrigation System Project Based on Real Option Analysis Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(10), pages 1989-2001, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:74:y:2014:i:s1:p:s16-s23. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.